Please take a moment and make a financial contribution to TheFunded. If we have helped you, help us with resources to further grow the both the site and our entrepreneur training program, The Founder Institute.

Posted by
takeaguess
on 2012-11-05

PUBLIC:

I had a series of meetings with Charlie Baker and Hemant for our post A round. We went through full diligence, but didn't close them, as they stated they couldn't support our valuation. Overall this experience was fine, as I would negatively review any for not wanting to give us money. The following Charlie joined the board of one of our largest, public competitors. Turns out that they have been friends for years.

According to Chris, 50% of their seed stage investments are with their own cadre of entrepreneurs in residence (EIRs). They have invested in over 40 companies out of this seed fund and touch on a great many spaces. When I pitched him, sure enough there was a company in their portfolio with an EIR that was in a tangential space.

Our company is doing great, and there we were, sharing trade secrets and IP for an hour and helping guide them to a better place. And, they have a whole cadre of EIRs and fund quickly, so entrepreneurs share their IP with them only to have them jump-start their own version almost wholly owned by General Catalyst.

There are a lot of other posts from entrepreneurs who have pitched General Catalyst only to find a copycat emerge months later from their cadre of EIRs. I left my meeting with them with reservations and suspicion which is why I looked them up afterward. I definitely did not feel Chris or General Catalyst were trustworthy, and structurally the way they are organized is in conflict with entrepreneurs.

I wish I had read the other posts on The Funded before meeting with them.

They dutifully investigated our business, then created from scratch an exact copycat of our company, 6 month later. Let me be clear: they did not invest in a competitor, they founded, managed (and funded, obviously) the copy cat!

Posted by
---
on 2009-06-10

Like any fund, there are a wide variety of different personalities and skill levels represented by the partners and associates. General Catalyst has grown very fast and have some real inexperienced and unproven professionals in their ranks.

I also found that there is a great delta between the hype that they put on themselves and the reality of who they are. They are not "proven entrepreneurs" as they state but rather a rag-tag bunch of spoiled brats, mama's boys, and also rans.

They are however, masters of spin, so if you have a fluffy idea with no substance, this is the firm to take it to.

Unsolicited and repeated requests to meet and share what we were doing. We politely declined because we were told by numerous and credible sources in Boston that they are shifty, smarmy, and clearly on the prowl for competitive information. We all like to have our ego stroked, but credible VCs rarely contact you blind. They find someone that knows you to facilitate an introduction.

In short, GC's tactics are one step up from the spam mail that claims you've won $10M . . . but only after they ask you for your SS# and some transfer fees.

They cold-called us the day after we were on CNET and a few of the high-profile blogs - eager to get us in their office for a meet and greet. We spoke with them 3 times, did some phone presentations (we're in different states), and they were completely loving it. But they kept on having scheduling conflicts on our avails, and eventually stopped returning emails and calls.

Six months later I find out why - they never had interest, they were just pre-texting us for research. One of their core portfolio companies who only made enterprise hardware & software launched a consumer product that bore a more-than striking resemblance to ours.

Posted by
topgun
on 2007-11-25

PUBLIC:

We pitched our idea to Hemant at GC -- and I don't think we did a great pitch (it was our first pitch to a VC firm) so needless to say we did not get funded. I don't get the feeling that they were ready to act in our space but they are shopping and studying the market - so when they do see something exciting they can move ahead more quickly jump in to the game. This is just being smart as a buyer goes - there were no promises about coming in to pitch them and walking out with a check. By the same token - as we have to be smart buyers of the VC's services we would be bringing in a very long term partner in the early stages of running and building a company so the onus is on both of us to make sure that we sell our company to the right partner and they buy into an idea and company that yields a partnership that is right for them. That is the whole idea of the pitch and I don't think Hemant lead us to believe any differently. The fact that he met us and gave us honest feedback about his concerns over our pitch and company was more helpful than not.

I recently had a call with one of the associates and was pleased with the level of respect and insight he provided. While Gautam ultimately passed on moving forward, he followed up with clear and concise reasoning and has made himself available as a sounding board in the future. While I still would hope to work with thier partnership, it was nice for once not to be blown off or mislead.

Posted by
RXMACI
on 2007-09-07

PUBLIC:

We made a pitch by phone to a Managing Director, who was very professional, insightful and helpful. Although our opportunity was not a fit for their portfolio, we received helpful feedback and a couple of names of other VCs who look at deals like ours.

We pitched to David Orfao a few years back. I got the sense in the meeting they weren't being upfront with me about something. Sure enough, they announced an investment in our competitor within a few weeks.

Posted by
RuralRoute6
on 2007-08-19

PUBLIC:

Money is there but can they bring partners to the table" George Bell has a strong network but unsure of other patrners/principals.
Should also beware of GC researching ideas for their incubation companies.

Posted by
reinspruch
on 2007-08-12

PUBLIC:

We had two phone calls and a presentation. We asked no less than a dozen times if our stage (pre-adoption) or location (not in Boston) were an issue. They kept telling us no and invited us out to pitch to a partner. Two days later we get an email that they are not comfortable investing in an pre-adoption company, particularly one not in Boston. Very very unprofessional and wasted our time.

Posted by
anonymous
on 2007-08-09

PUBLIC:

An associate was supposed to call me to chat before I was scheduled to pitch at their office. The associate blew me off and then called me later to tell me to come into the office. He was supposed to meet me with John Simon.

I was left waiting for 45 minutes in their conference room and when John finally showed up the associate was nowhere to be found. He blew me off again! John then told me that our hour time slot had to be cut to 15 minutes because he was running late. He must have felt that it was alright to keep me waiting but he couldn't do that to his next meeting.

He then low balled me and said that I could probably find other VCs willing to pay me more because they probably didn't have the same quality of deal flow as GC and that they were probably unable to post the kind of returns that GC has posted. I have never met anyone as cocky as him in my entire life.

It is pretty well known that they brought SideStep in to pick thier brains during thier process of founding kayak. This was something that really was out of line and should be recognized by any entrepreneur with a good business.

They cold called us, and we pitched them last year knowing that they had a portfolio company in our general industry. We just found out yesterday that the portfolio company is launching a product just like ours. They did not really do anything wrong, but it still stings.

Posted by
mylar
on 2007-05-10

Posted by
More than Scrappy
on 2007-05-08

PUBLIC:

I was contacted by Steve as they were very interested in hearing my pitch. He talked me into coming to their town on my dime. I also spent serious money on a hotel near their expensive offices. When I got the offices for our meeting, Steve and Joel didnt even allow me to pitch, instead bringing me to a couch where they proceeded to railroad me and not hear my plan or vision. Im an expert in both my field and online marketing, and deserved to be treated that way. In fact, if someone flys to see you at your request, spends $200 a night on a hotel, you should have the professionalism to allow them to actually DO their pitch. I wasnt allowed to, and was even belittled while there. Steve never followed up to my follow up email to him. Its very ironic because their website brags about how these guys will be a refreshing experience from how most investors treat enteprenuers. Quite the contrary, they were MY WORST experience of any of the 16 pitches we made accross the country. Beware of these guys, let them pay your airfare and hotel if they are really excited to meet you! They can afford it by the looks of their offices, and they really DONT really care about enteprenuers, as someone who has actually been there and met them.

Spoke to them last year. They are very smart and ask great questions. I did not get funding, but I did get some very good advice. They are also good at follow-up and making sure they do not leave you hanging.